Does Multimedia Theory Apply to all Students? The Impact of Multimedia Presentations on Science Learning

Abstract

In K-12 school settings in the United States, there is a preponderance of information delivered via multimedia to students everyday e.g., visual aids found in science textbooks, electronic tablets, streamed video content, web pages, animations, and PowerPoint presentations . The cognitive theory of multimedia learning CTML outlines numerous principles associated with learning from and with multimedia Mayer, Hegarty, Mayer, & Cambell, 2005 . However, the bulk of the research like the CTML has been conducted using college age students Jones, 2010; McTigue, 2009 . There is ample evidence that college age students and younger students exhibit numerous and important differences when learning from multimedia content Hannus & Hyona, 1999; McTique, 2009; Moreno, 2007; Van Parreren, 1983 . As a result, the objective of the current study is to examine the influence of multimedia presentations that leverage motion present or absent in conjunction with signaling cues present or absent on high school students’ ability to learn science concepts. Using a 2x2 experimental design, 99 high school participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. Results of indicated statistical significance all participants over time for a knowledge measure and quality of concepts from a concept mapping task. Implications for multimedia learning theory on younger students are examined.

Keywords

• cognitive theory, multimedia, science, high school, learning

References

1. Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287-298.
2. Bauer J., & Kenton J. (2005). Toward technology integration in schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13 (4), 519-546.
3. Boucheix, J., & Schneider, E. (2009) Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems, Learning and Instruction, 19, 112-127.
4. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
5. Bulter, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 331-340.
6. Cherney, I., & Neff, L. N. (2004). Role of strategies and prior exposure in mental rotation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1269-1282.
7. Clark County School District (2016). Assessment, Accountability, Research, and School Improvement. Retrieved January 10, 2016 from: http://ccsd.net/divisions/assessment-accountability-research-school-improvement-division
8. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-210.

9. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Guillot, A., Champely, S., Batier, C., Thiriet, P., & Collet, C. (2007). Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12, 491-507.
11. Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning science textbook passages among low and high ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123.
12. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
13. Haslam, Y. C., & Hamilton, J. R. (2010). Investigating the use of intergrated instructions to reduce the cognitive load associated with doing practical work n secondary scholl science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(13), 1715-1737.
14. Ingec, K. S. (2009). Analysing concept maps as an assessment tool in teaching physics and comparison with the achievement tests. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1897-1915
15. Jacobs-Lawson, J. M., & Hershey, D. A. (2002). Concept maps as an assessment tool in psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 25-29.
16. Jaffe, D. (March, 2015). Why overwhelmed educators should stick to these simple tech tools. eSchool News: Daily Tech News & Innovation, March 2, 2015, retrieved: http://www.eschoolnews.com/2015/03/02/simple-tech-tools-860/
17. Jeung, H., Chandler P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329-343.
18. Jones, D. (2010). A weird view of human nature skews psychologists’ studies. Science, 328, 1627.
19. Jones, M., Gardner, G, Taylor, A. R., Wiebe, E., & Forrester, J. (2010). Conceptualizing magnification and scale: The roles of spatial visualization and logical thinking. Research Science Education 41(3), 357-368.
20. Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge, Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 852-861.
21. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183-194.
22. Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations, International Journal Human Computer Studies, 65, 911-930.
23. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Macgill, A., Evans, C., & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video Games, and Civics. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.pewinternet.org/re- ports/2008/teens-Video-Games-and-civics.aspx
24. Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Redundancy and expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to primary school science. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 60, 1-13.
25. Lin, H., Dwyer, F. M. (2010). The effect of static and animated visualization: a perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency, Education Technical research, Development, 58, 155-174.
26. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.
27. Lowe, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press.
28. Luzon, J. M., & Luton, E. (2015). Use of animated text to improve the learning of basic mathematics. Computers & Education, 88, 119-128.
29. Mathewson, J.H. (1999) Visual- Spatial Thinking: A aspect of science overlooked by educators, Science Education, 83(1), 33-54.
30. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-389.
31. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
32. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning environments: The case for evidence-based practice and issue-driven research. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (4), 359-366.
33. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, New York
34. Mayer, R, E. (2009). Multimedia Learning. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
35. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., Cambel, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256-265.
36. Mayer, R. E., Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revisiting the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380-386.
37. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
38. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review. 14(1), 87-99.
39. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communication by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology. 91(4), 638-643.
40. McClure, R.J., Sonak, B., & Suen, K, H. (1999). Concept map assessment of classroom learning: reliability, validity, and logistical practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(4), 475-492.
41. McTigue, E. M. (2009). Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 143-153.
42. Miranda, H. P., & Russell, M. (2012). Understanding factors associated with teacher-directed student use of technology in elementary classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43 (4), 652-666.
43. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and effective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765-781.
44. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
45. Morgan, G. A., & Griego, O. V. (1998). Easy Use And Interpretation of SPSS for Windows: Answering Research Questions with Statistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
46. Mousavi, Y. S., Lowe, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of educational Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
47. National Research Council, (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
48. National Research Council, (2009). Rising Above the Gathering Storm Two Years Later: Accelerating Progress Toward a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
49. Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How Teachers Are Using Technology at Home and in Their Classrooms. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved November 21, 2013, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-and-technology.aspx
50. Reiser, R. A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (1), 53-64.
51. Reiser, R. A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49 (2), 57-67.
52. Reiber. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and micro worlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549-568). New York: Cambridge University Press.
53. Ruiz-Primo, A. M., & Shavelson, J. R. (1996). Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569-600
54. Stull, T. A., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive three-dimensional graphics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 803-816.
55. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
56. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 119, 176-192.
57. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
58. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modalities are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257-287.
59. Tversky, B., Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animations: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57(4), 247-262.
60. Van Parreren, C. F. (1983). Teaching pupils to “read” pictures. In R. Briel (Ed.). Media Science Durban Butterworth. (pp. 65-71)
61. Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599-604.
62. Yin, Y. (2008). Application of generalizability theory to concept map assessment research, Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 273-291.